Re: Cellular Phone Sample Rate

Phil Allison wrote:
"Kevin T" <kgtracy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1140015672.151649.80310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


** In future Kev, please hit "options" and then "reply" on your Google
page. That way your post will contain a quote of the particular poster and
text you are responding to - just like a normal usenet post.

Your posts look disembodied and freakish at the moment.


Phil- Thanks for the google pointers. I was not sure why but my posts
did look Fubar lately:( Unfortunenatly that was that last thing you
said that I can agree with!


Interesting thought.


** I wonder which one he means .......


I can tell you listening effort ( intelligibility
& recognizability) is high on most infrastructure and mobile device
makers list.

Phil- Do you also work for a CDMA or GSM network equiptment or service
supplier? Are you a communications major somewhere? If not I assume
"Bull***" was just another frustrated users venting? I have 20 years
wireless RF and audio design/test at AT&T / Lucent Bell Labs and am now
in Smartphone audio test at Motorola. I'm sure you're familiar with
these companies work.


** Bull***.

The GSM system has inherently very poor ( ie crap) voice quality due to the
codec used.

Adding to the misery of using one is the fact that most mobile phones place
the mic up the side of a person's face - so missing a large amount of
voice information and *increasing* any environmental or room noise
dramatically.

PLUS there is no "side tone" - GSM users do not hear their own voices in
the earphone as you do with a wired phone (which encourages shouting).

PLUS the conversation is only ONE way at a time - unlike a wired phone
which allows simultaneous voices in both directions - like a REAL
conversation does !!!!



Current high performing CDMA and GSM phones/systems given
a good RF path can and do approch landline MOS quality.


** BULL*** !!


Voice quality has as much to do with system RF optimization as does
good vocoders & transducers.


** It has a GREAT DEAL to do with other factors entirely.

Who brainwashed YOU ??



As for in car conversations
with passengers, this is proven to be very bad too.


** Post the proof.

It is not in the same league as using a mobile phone - especially a hand
held one.


Ever see the driver
whos heads going back & forth as he looks at the passenger to make his
point!


** No.


Most studies I'm aware of find the drivers attention is equally
reduced by handheld or handsfree use.


** Shame about the bad effect of driving with one hand on the wheel.

Maybe you are familiar with that - phone or no phone.



This is your brain on phone or
This is your brain on Bluetooth... seems the same :) So NJ and others
are on the wrong track to reduce accidents but that's not a surprise
:( In the mix is of coarse the agenda of some very powerful wireless
service providers and their PACs. The same ones that buy my companies
products and pay my salary!


** You get paid to do what - Kev ?

Think like a moron and post drivel on usenet ?




........ Phil

Phil -I won't waste everyones time addressing each of your many
incorrect GSM statements (" there is no "side tone" / "the
conversation is only ONE way at a time" ) etc. I won't have to because
it looks like others have already begun and you've revealed your lack
of credability on this subject better than anyone else could. Over the
last 10 yrs RAP has been an invaluable source of learning for me from
audio subject mater experts. As a part time musician turned soundguy I
don't often feel qualified to contribute. But Wireless telecom audio is
the day job that I've lived and breathed for over 10 years. It's
unfortunate this interesting thread went downhill so fast.

Kevin T

.